Many people in Denver actually thought the recent economic meltdown would be good news for that city’s FasTracks megaproject because the downturn would reduce projected construction costs. It did, slightly, but (as the Antiplanner predicted) it reduced projected revenues even more.
Regional Transit District (RTD) officials promised voters that the 119-mile rail project would cost $4.7 billion in 2004. By 2008, cost projections had increased to $7.9 billion. But the 2009 projection is “only” $6.952 billion (see p. 39).
(For some reason, the Denver Post rounds this down to $6.9 billion, when it properly should be rounded to $7.0. I guess that’s what happens when a city loses one of its two daily papers.)
It failed at that miserably, but it did have some rather unexpected side effects… levitra properien .) So, what’s the #1 most dangerous blood pressure drug side effect – the one that you won’t find on the label? Complacency and a false sense of security. Women can have issues as well. cheap tadalafil canada Notably, you can collect http://www.heritageihc.com/buy8816.html purchase viagra online some references from here too. Drinking your sex life away Too much alcohol can have a definite effect on one’s sex life making it dull. viagra no prescription cheap Meanwhile, the forecast of sales tax revenues between 2005 and 2035 has declined from $13.7 billion in 2004 to $10.9 billion in 2008 to just $9.4 billion in 2009. While $9.4 billion is more than the projected $6.9 billion cost, if RTD is to complete FasTracks by its promised deadline of 2017, it will have to borrow money, which means that it will only have $5.8 in capital to build $7.0 billion worth of rail lines.
This has led to dissension in the ranks of the region’s majors who have been the biggest promoters (outside of RTD itself) of FasTracks. RTD wants to apply for federal funds for two of the six major rail lines, but some of the mayors oppose it until RTD can promise that it won’t delay some of the other lines.
During the 2004 campaign, the Antiplanner scrutinized RTD’s financial plan. Although sales tax revenues had actually declined by nearly percent in 2002 and declined again in 2003, RTD was projecting that, starting in 2005, revenues would grow by 6 percent per year forever. This would not only be enough to pay for FasTracks, by 2030 or so RTD would start accumulating billions in surplus revenues — easily enough to double the region’s rail system (and they had plans on the books to do so).
They were going to be literally rolling in money. Of course, it was all a fantasy, but one that they promised was realistic and they may even have believed it themselves.
High costs?
Monopolies on labor, in the form of unions, hurt us all, as do the Davis-Bacon laws.
We need more free-market.
That would reduce many costs, including construction.
Unfortunately, BO has no clue & is going full force on his socialistic Porkulus Package, which includes many kickbacks for campaign help.
The government caused this recession
(mainly by restricting housing supply & pushing sub-prime loans),
yet laissez-faire gets blamed.
Bush talked free enterprise & limited gov, but surely didn’t follow through, increasing gov by a lot. He increased regs too, especially via Sarbanes-Oxley.
When will people realize, the gov mucks up almost everything?
This is not a call to anarchy.
So, for those of you who thinks there are binary choices, don’t be so narrow minded.
A recession is not the time for high cost transit.
What do these come out to be, over $50,000 per rider?
If there must be extra gov spending, how about buying 100,000s Teslas or Smart-Cars & charge hourly for use. Add more lanes too.
Here are a few articles of national importance:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/01/the-new-socialists/
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/03/03/waging-war-on-prosperity/
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWEzNjBhM2ZhZDRjNzI3ZjM2M2MzMjUyMTI3Njc4ZDk=
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629834716846367.html
I don’t get why this deadline matters. Exactly what are they obligated to do according the 2004 vote? IIRC the West Corridor is 30% single track, has 3 car stations, and other things that were not part of the original plan. What is keeping them from dropping the Boulder – Longmont stretch of track to save 1/4 billion? Do they actually need to make that date? Or could they just do something like put off building the $2 billion (or are they saying it’ll be less) East Corridor until the end so they could build all the others for everyone else first?
AIUI there is a build-by date and funding mechanism stops (2017). Delays increase costs, and delays…delay… land-use decisions such as which parcels to aggregate for development proximate to TOD, which is more profitable development. I regularly run into one of the new electees and maybe if I get a chance soon I’ll ask him.
The real issue is that most of the affected mayors are weak mayors, so no bully pulpit to do anything, and the anti-choice lobbyists are flocking to the Front Range gaming the system and spreading FUD.
DS
So 2017 is the drop dead date so to speak for funding and building under the 2004 vote. That would explain the hurrying of things. Thanks.
The hurrying is that the talking is done, and the dithering is costing money. And the economic model of funding by people purchasing cr&p they don’t need is taking a big hit.
DS
Well so what else is new, the anti-planner just keeps pushing a political agenda of for the people that pay his bills and nothing more.
Pingback: The Antiplanner :: Suckered Again :: http://ti.org/antiplanner
“And the economic model of funding by people purchasing cr&p they don’t need is taking a big hit.” –DS
That and Fastracks’ projected sales tax increases were at best sophomoric if not down right knowingly wrong. They took the average increase from a period of time when metro Denver incurred huge sales tax revenue increases percentage wise. Those high rates came about because the metro population was growing at a rate much faster than anyone’s expected ever again going forward. It was also a time when retail sales in the US were growing faster than what anyone has expected going forward (e.g. for at least the last decade or so many industry experts have speculated if any more square footage per capita could be sustained). Also metro Denver incurred a higher rate of increase in sales tax receipts during that base period than would be expected going forward because it was a unique period of per household income growth for metro Denver.
Even without the current prolonged recession they would’ve fell short